r 


5TP 

r  ra.-^cUft.o  . 


TO 


|l  BIS  EXCELLENCY:  WILLIAM  IRWIN; 


GOVERNOR   OF   THE 


STATE    OP    CALIFORNIA, 


FROM  THE 


COMMISSIONERS 


OF 


SAN    FRANCISCO. 


SAN    FBANCISCO : 

B.  F.  STEBETT,  PRINTER  AND  ENGRAVER.  S32  OLAT  STREET. 
1876. 


BUREAU  OF  GOVERNMENTAL 

LIBRARY 
44  LI  BRANT 


TO 


HIS  EXCELLENCY:  WILLIAM  IRWIN: 


•o 


GOVERNOR   OF  THE 


STATE    OF    CALIFORNIA, 


FROM  THE 


COMMISSIONERS 


OF 


SAN    FRANCISCO. 


SAN   FKANCISCO : 

B.  F.  STEBXTT,  PBINTEB  AND  ENGBAVKB,  532  OLAY  STBKET. 
1876. 


To  His  EXCELLENCY:  WILLIAM  IRWIN; 

Governor  of  the  State  of  California. 

SIR:— 

In  justice  to  themselves,  as  well  as  to  those 
who  have  been  in  their  employ,  the  undersigned  Park 
Commissioners,  of  the  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco, 
request  your  attention  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  pres- 
ent communication :  namely  the  circumstances  of  the 
recent  investigation  into  the  affairs  of  this  Board  by  a 
committee  of  the  Assembly,  and  the  report  submitted 
thereon. 

On  the  tenth  day  of  January,  1S76,  under  and  by  virtue  of 
a  resolution,  adopted  on  that  day,  the  Honorable  D.  C.  Sullivan, 
James  G.  Carson,  William  Broderick,  Thomas  Barber  and  Fred- 
erick Raisch  were  appointed  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Assembly  "to  proceed  to  San  Francisco  and  investigate  the 
expenditures  of  public  moneys  by  the  Park  Commissioners  of 
San  Francisco,  and  all  the  acts,  business  and  affairs  of  said 
Commissioners,  in  the  improvement  of  the  outside  lands,  known 
and  designated  as  Golden  Gate  Park,  from  the  date  of  organi- 
zation of  said  Commission  to  the  present  time." 

1  The  Committee  met  in  the  rooms  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
in  this  city  and  county,  without  previous  notification  to  this 
Board,  on  the  morning  of  the  J2th  day  of  January,  on  which 
occasion  it  was  announced  publicly  by  the  chairman — the  Hon. 
D.  C.  Sullivan — that  the  knowledge  of  certain  gross  irregulari- 
ties, delinquencies — not  to  say,  criminalities — on  the  part  of. the 
Superintendent  of  the  Parks  having  come  to  his  ears,  he  had 
asked  and  obtained  the  appointment  of  the  then  present  com- 
mittee to  investigate  into  such  maladministration  as  these  re- 
ported wrong-doings  seemed  to  indicate. 

The  remainder  of  that  day  was  spent  by  the  Committee  in 
inspecting  the  Park  and  the  improvements  thereon. 

The  two  succeeding  days  were  occupied  in  secret  investiga- 
tion, to  which  neither  the  members  of  this  Commission,  nor 
their  employees,  were  admitted.  This  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Committee,  as  we  were  informed,  was  for  the  purpose  of 


examining  such  complaining  witnesses  as  might  present  them- 
selves, and  thus  enabling  the  Committee  to  judge  whether  or 
not  there  was  any  ground  for  investigation. 

It  appears  that  the  committee  were  satisfied  on  this  point, 
from  such  private  inquiry,  and  made  up  their  minds  in  the  affir- 
mative on  the  proposition,  for  the  two  days  following  were 
spent  in  bringing  before  the  public,  in  open  investigation,  the 
various  charges,  criticisms,  etc.,  made  by  the  witnesses  exam- 
ined in  private.  The  Commissioners  or  their  employes  were 
not  informed  of  what  discrepancies,  irregularities  or  mistakes 
they  would  be  called  upon  to  answer  or  explain,  but  were  put 
on  the  stand  to  be  catechised  upon  the  trivial  circumstances  of 
a  five  years'  administration  (much  of  which  had  been,  so  far 
as  the  Commissioners  were  concerned,  during  the  administration 
of  their  predecessors)  upon  the  complaint  of  a  number  of  their 
former  subordinate  employees. 

At  this  juncture  the  Committee  adjourned  to  Sacramento, 
despite  the  earnest  request  of  the  Park  management,  without 
affording  those  maligned  an  opportunity  to  present  a  line  of 
evidence  in  defence  against  the  statements  put  forth  to  their 
discredit. 

The  conduct  of  the  Chairman  of  this  Committee,  Hon.  D. 
C.  Sullivan,  previous  to,  on  the  occasion  of,  and  immediately 
after  this  partial  investigation,  was  such  as  to  induce  the  super- 
intendent in  the  employ  of  this  Board — towards  whom  the 
attack  seemed  to  be  directed — to  ask  at  the  hands  of  the  As- 
sembly his  dismissal  from  the  Committee.  Certain  affidavits 
were  presented  to  that  Honorable  Body,  and  the  member  men- 
tioned resigned  from  the  Committee.  To  these  affidavits,  now 
on  file  in  the  archives  of  the  Assembly,  we  respectfully  call 
your  attention,  with  the  remark  that  it  is  a  little  singular  that 
the  Honorable  Member  towards  whom  they  were  directed 
never  asked  at  the  hands  of  the  House  an  investigation  into 
the  charges  contained  therein. 

On  February  12th  1876,  the  Assembly  Committee  having 
manifested  a  decided  unwillingness  to  return  to  this  city  and 
conclude  its  labors,  the  Commissioners  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  San  Francisco  Delegation  in  the  Senate,  in  which  they  said : 


"  We  respectfully  represent  that  some  action  at  the  hands  of 
the  present  Legislature,  providing  for  the  further  improvement 
and  maintenance  of  these  Parks,  will  be  necessary;  and  that  it 
has  been  the  intention  of  this  Commission  to  present  the  subject 
for  your  consideration ;  but  in  view  of  the  unsettled  question 
of  the  faithful  and  judicious  conduct  of  its  affairs  by  this  Board 
and  its  chief  employee  in  the  past,  the  undersigned  are  now 
hesitating  to  make  any  suggestions  for  the  future.  In  the 
meantime  the  session  of  the  Legislature  is  drawing  towards  a 
close,  and  time  for  clearing  up  the  questions  involved  and  con- 
sideration of  subsequent  measures,  becoming  short.  The 
undersigned,  therefore,  having  ^nothing  to  conceal,  but  desiring 
a  full  and  searching  investigation  into  the  management  of  the 
grounds  committed  to  their  charge,  now  respectfully  urge  the 
immediate  appointment  of  a  special  committee  of  the  Senate  of 
the  State  of  California,  to  prosecute  such  inquiry,  and  report 
suggestions  for  a  future  line  of  policy  in  the  conduct  of  Park 
affairs,  and  request  your  support  of  the  movement  for  the 
appointment  of  said  commiteee.'' 

In  answer  to  which  the  Commissioners  received  a  letter  from 
the  Hon.  Chairman  of  the  Delegation,  the  purport  of  which 
was,  that  the  Delegation  was  not  aware  of  any  circumstance 
which  would  justify  the  members  thereof  in  favoring  the 
appointment  of  a  Senate  committee  of  investigation,  and  that 
they  were  "  ever  ready  to  receive  suggestions  from  the  Com- 
missioners as  to  the  future  conduct  of  the  Parks." 

Although  the  members  of  the  Assembly  Committee  were 
repeatedly  requested,  by  those  most  interested  on  the  part  of 
the  Park  management,  to  return  to  this  city  an'l  give  them  the 
opportunity  of  presenting  evidence  to  controvert  the  criticisms 
and  charges  brought  forward  at  the  first  investigation  ;  it  was 
not  until  the  sixth  day  of  March — nearly  two  months  after  the 
first  partial  inquiry  made  in  this  city — and  then  only  in  obedi- 
ence to  a  resolution  of  instruction  by  the  House,  put  forward 
at  the  instance  of  friends  of  the  Park  management — that  such 
opportunity  was  given,  and  the  report  of  the  Committee  was 
not  handed  in  until  the  last  working  day  but  one  of  the  session. 

This  report  is  such  a  remarkable  document  in  the  respect  of 
;ipl>;irent,ly  ignoring  all  testimony  for  the  defence,  that  we  ask 
your  attention  to  its  conclusions  in  detail ;  and  the  better  to 
facilitate  your  inquiry  we  set  before  you,  under  the  appropriate 


headings,  the  several  points  made  in  it,  each  followed  by  a 
synopsis  of  the  evidence  upon  which  it  should  have  been  based, 
with  such  comments  as  appears  to  us  proper. 

The  testimony  taken  was  printed  in  three  separate  parcels, 
by  order  of  the  House,  severally  denominated  "Testimony" 
&c.,  "  Additional  Testimony "  &c.,  and  "  Final  Testimony 
taken  before  the  Assembly  Special  Committee,  appointed  to 
investigate  the  affairs  of  the  Golden  Gate  Park,  San  Francisco." 

DESTRUCTION  OF  TREES. 

"  First — The  system  of  tree  planting  now  and  heretofore  carried 
out  has  resulted  in  a  wanton  and  useless  destruction  of  one -third 
of  all  the  trees  planted:  This  plan  has  been  heartily  indorsed  and 
followed  by  the  witness  Poppey.  He  has  cut  down  hundreds  of 
valuable  trees  three  years  old,  and  raised  with  great  care,  labor 
and  expense.  These  trees  might,  in  the  opinion  of  rour  commit- 
tee, have  been  transplanted  at  a  small  expense,  and  large  sums  of 
money  thus  saved;  and  brush  fences  could  have  been  built  of  the 
natural  brush  on  portions  of  the  park,  and  which  at  some  time 
must  be  removed.'' 

(Extract— first  finding— Kept.  Assembly  Park  Com.,  page  4. 

The  testimony  upon  which  the  above  judgment  is  based 
is  in  substance  as  follows : 

J.  J.  MURPHY — A  gardener  employed  at  the  park  at  $55  per 
month,  originally  ranked  as  a  laborer — testified  that  some  trees 
which  had  been  planted  on  the  park,  were  cut  down  after  they 
had  grown  to  a  good  size,  in  his  judgment  this  was  wrong ;  the 
trees  ought  to  have  been  removed,  if  not  wanted  in  the  places 
where  they  stood,  transplanted ;  had  cut  down  some  himself, 
could  not  state  the  number  ;  supposed  there  were  ten  to  twelve 
hundred  cut  down  altogether. 

(See  page  117  and  118  of  Testimony.) 

DANIEL  SULLIVAN— A  laborer  at  the  park — testified  that  he 
cut  down  trees  himself,  to  the  number  of  sixty  to  eighty,  by 
order  of  the  head  gardener;  trees  being  two  to  three  years  old  ; 
did  not  know  the  number  cut  or  why  they  were  cut. 

(See  page  128  of  Testimony.) 

ALEXANDER  ANDREWS — A  laborer  employed  at  the  park — 
testified  that  he  cut  down  some  trees  himself  by  order  of  the 


head  gardener;  knew  of  about  two  hundred  being  cut  altogeth- 
er. Some  of  the  trees  he  cut  were  removed  for  the  purpose  of 
thinning  out  the  clumps. 

(See  page  18  of  Additional  Testimony.) 

This  constitutes  the  sum  total  of  testimony  taken  in 
open  session,  which  in  any  degree  tends  to  condemn  the 
act  of  cutting  trees.  The  character  of  these  witnesses  is 
such,  in  the  point  of  qualification  to  pass  judgment  on  a 
subject  of  the  kind,  that  it  was  not  deemed  worth  the 
time  to  cross-question  them  to  any  extent. 

It  appears  however  that  other  witnesses  were  exam, 
ined  on  this  point  in  the  secret  session  of  the  Committee, 
to  whose  opinions  the  Committee  have  evidently  given 
'ear.  Be  it  remembered  that  the  park  management  was 
not  represented  at  their  examination,  and,  consequently, 
they  were  not  cross-examined. 

Their  testimony  is  as  follows : 

WILLIAM  COLLIE — A  gardener  and  nurseryman,  never  em- 
ployed at  the  park — condemned  the  act  of  cutting  down  trees 
which  had  once  been  planted ;  called  it  wanton  destruction. 

HENRY  STEWART — A  gardener  and  nurseryman,  never  em- 
ployed at  the  park — thought  that  unless  the  trees  stood  too 
thick  it  was  wanton  destruction  to  cut  them  down. 

(See  page  27  of  Testimony.) 

FRANK  ROSENTHAL — A  gardener  employed  at  the  park,  at  $60 
per  month — testified  that  he  knew  of  trees  being  cut  at  the 
park ;  cut  some  down  himself,  where  he  considered  they  stood 
too  thick. 

(See  page  26  of  Testimony.) 

In  explanation  and  justification  of  cutting  trees,  the 
following  testimony  appears : 

W.  H.  HALL — Superintendent  of  the  park — testified  that  he 
could  not  state  the  number  of  trees  that  were  cut ;  had  author- 
ized the  thinning  out  of  the  plantations,  wherever  it  was  neces- 


8 

sary,  which  was  done.     Speaking  of  planting  thickly  with  the 
view  of  thinning  out,  he  said  : 

lt  It  is  a  thing  done  in  all  cases,  and  one  probably  more  neces- 
sary in  this  improvement  than  in  any  other  of  the  kind  in  the 
country." 

Did  not  consider  the  trees  as  worth  anything  when  their  pur- 
pose had  been  served,  and  it  became  necessary  to  thin  the  groups, 
for  they  were  too  old  to  transplant  to  advantage. 

"  The  trees  that  are  on  the  windward  side  of  a  group  gener- 
ally are  blown  to  pieces.  Their  shape,  their  appearance  is  de- 
stroyed ;  their  beauty  is  marred  very  much.  Such  trees  are  cut 
away,  and  others — similar  ones — put  in  their  places.  Further- 
more, in  groups  of  trees  it  is  not  desirable  to  have  all  the  same 
size.  These  trees  which  were  cut  away  (on  the  windward  side 
of  the  groups)  had  been  protecting  others  which  had  been  grow- 
ing in  the  meantime,  and  had  obtained  a  good  form  and  outline. 
Those  others  were  brought  into  the  foreground  by  cutting  away 
these  in  front.  Then,  again,  the  instances  have  been  very  few, 
comparatively,  where  exactly  the  same  kind  of  trees  have  been 
planted  in  the  same  place ;  and,  furthermore,  where  the  trees 
have  been  cut  away — in  by  no  means  a  majority — a  very  small 
minority — of  cases  have  there  been  others  planted  at  all  of  any 
kind.  In  more  instances  there  have  been  shrubs  planted — low 
growing  shrubs.  In  other  cases  trees  were  cut  out  of  the  mid- 
dle of  the  groups,  with  the  intention  of  thinning  out.  By  refer- 
ence to  my  reports  concerning  the  improvement  of  the  park,  it 
will  be  seen  that  reasons  are  given  for  planting  trees  so  close  to- 
gether. And  it  has  been  said  from  the  first  report  I  made  that 
it  was  designed  to  cut  those  trees  and  thin  them  out.  That 
work  commenced  last  fall." 

(See  page  62  and  64  of  Testimony.) 

F.  W.  POPPET — Landscape  gardener,  Head  Gardener  at  the 
park  j  educated  at  the  Royal  Horticultural  College,  in  Berlin, 
Prussia ;  recommended  by  Mr.  Fred.  Law  Olmstead,  of  Central 
and  Prospect  parks,  New  York  and  Brooklyn  —  explained  at 
length  the  circumstances  of  cutting  down  some  trees  at  the 
park,  in  substantially  the  same  terms  above  quoted  from  W.  H. 
Hall.  Said  he  ordered  the  work  to  be  done ;  and  that  about 
two  hundred  in  all  were  cut,  principally  in  thinning  out  the 
plantations. 

(See  pages  139,  144,  148  of  Testimony.) 

JAMES  BAILEY — Engaged  in  raising  forest  trees  and  foresting 


lands  therewith — testified  that  bethought  it  "an  excellent  plan 
to  plant  trees  thicker  than  they  are  intended  to  stand." 

"  I  advocate  planting  a  forest  thicker  than  it  is  intended  to 
remain,  for  two  reasons.  One  reason  is,  it  shades  the  ground, 
and  prevents  it  from  drying  up  so  fast ,  another  reason  is,  the 
trees  protect  each  other,  and  they  are  more  apt  to  grow  straight." 
"Trees  require  thinning  out  when  planted  in  this  way."  (Ex- 
tracts, p.  -21  Additional  Test.)  "Trees  planted  close  together 
with  the  view  of  thinning  out  when  they  commence  to  inter- 
fere with  each  other,  will  make  a  better  forest  than  those  planted 
further  apart." 

(Extract,  p.  31  of  Additional  Test.) 

THOMAS  O'NEIL — Nurseryman  and  landscape  gardener  of  long 
experience ;  business,  raising  forest  trees,  and  foresting  lands 
therewith — testified : 

"  It  is  usual  to  plant  thicker  than  it  is  intended  to  have  the 
trees  finally." 

(Extract,  p.  35  of  Additional  Test.) 

And  further  explained  the  necessity  for  planting  thickly  and 
afterwards  thinning  out,  in  somewhat  the  same  terms  employed 
by  previous  and  succeeding  witnesses. 

J.  S.  HENDERSON — Gardener,  with  experience  of  thirty-three 
years,  formerly  employed  as  head  gardener  upon  the  park,  at 
present  in  charge  of  grounds  of  Mr.  J.  C.  Flood,  Menlo  Park, 
testified : 

"In  planting  a  place  of  that  kind  (the  park)  it  is  usual  to 
place  the  trees  much  closer  than  they  are  ultimately  intended 
to  stand."  "I  would  plant  thicker  even  than  the  trees  are 
planted  in  the  park,  because  one  protects  the  other,  thinning 
out  as  they  grow  every  year."  "I  would  not  hesitate  in  cut- 
ting out  even  the  best  formed  tree  in  a  group,  if  I  judged  the 
rest  would  have  a  better  show  for  growth."  (Ex-tract,  p.  58, 
59  of  Ad.  Test.)  *•  I  consider  it  true  economy  to  plant  four 
trees  with  the  intention  of  ultimately  destroying  two  or  three 
of  the  number."  "It  is  the  custom  from  time  immemorial." 
(Extract,  p.  04  of  Ad.  Test.) 

JOHN  ELLIS — Landscape  gardener  and  horticulturist  of  forty 
years  experience ;  laid  out  and  improved  the  State  Capitol 
grounds;  at  present  Horticulturist  at  the  University  of  Califor- 
nia— testified,  that  he  could  very  readily  understand  how  there 


10 

might  have  been  quite  a  number,  several  hundred  trees,  cut 
down  out  of  the  plantations  in  the  park. 

"It  is  done  so  every  where,  in  large  plantations.  It  was 
done  so  in  New  York  Central  Park.  You  have  to  plant  thickly 
in  order  to  protect  young  growing  plants — in  order  to  get  them 
up.  They  screen  each  other,  and  form  a  natural  protection  ; 
whereas,  if  they  were  planted  at  the  regular  distance  that  you 
would  have  trees  to  remain,  it  would  be  a  hundred  chances  to 
one  if  they  would  ever  get  up  in  shape  in  the  locality  of  this 
park,  where  the  winds  are  so  powerful  from  the  west."  (Ex- 
tract, p.  81  Ad.  Test.)  ll  As  a  matter  of  principle  it  would  be 
better  to  plant  fifteen  thousand  trees  to  the  acre,  with  the  view 
of  destroying  ten  thousand  of  them,"  than  not  to  have  them 
thick  enough  to  render  mutual  protection.  "  It  is  done  all  over 
the  world." 

(Extracts,  p.  86  and  87,  Ad.  Test.) 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  oral  testimony,  there  was  read 
before  the  committee  an  extract  from  the  Report  of  the  Park 
Commissioners  of  Cincinnati,  for  the  year  1874,  page  16 — being 
a  portion  of  the  report  of  Mr.  Adolph  Strauch,  a  landscape  gar- 
dener of  much  experience  and  reputation — as  follows:  Speak- 
ing of  the  plantations  "  which  it  became  necessary  to  thin,  in 
order  to  give  room  for  the  development  into  handsome  speci- 
mens of  the  remaining  trees,"  he  says  :  This  method  of  plant- 
ing is  generally  practiced  in  the  formation  of  ornamental  plan- 
tations in  public  and  private  grounds  in  Europe,  and  has  been 
executed  in  this  vicinity  with  great  success  during  the  last  twen- 
ty years.  Plant  thick  and  thin  quick,  is  an  old  saying  with  ex- 
perienced planters  everywhere." 

The  members  of  the  committee  were  told  that  the  Reports 
of  the  managers  of  other  Eastern  Parks  abounded  with  similar 
allusions  to  the  necessity  for  sacrificing  a  good  proportion  of 
trees  set  out  in  a  ground  of  the  kind  ;  but  they  did  not  consider 
such  authorities  admissible  in  evidence,  and  the  extract  above 
quoted  was  not  reproduced  in  the  reporter's  notes. 

Explanations  were  made  by  the  Head  Gardener  as  well  as  the 
Engineer,  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  under  which  the  trees 
were  chopped  :  namely,  their  situation  on  flat  ground,  in  very 
sandy  soil,  whence  they  could  not  be  moved  with  much  show 
of  success,  or  at  any  reasonable  cost.  And  furthermore,  it  was 
shown  that  a  small  tree,  whose  roots  had  not  been  injured  by 


11 


process  of  removal,  as  those  of  the  larger  trees  must  be,  would 
soon  develop  into  the  larger  and  more  vigorous  plant  of  the  two, 
and  that  thus  it  was  not  only  more  economical,  but  productive 
of  better  results  to  chop  down  the  larger  trees  where  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  thin  the  plantations,  and  plant  young,  growing  trees 
where  new  groups  were  desired. 

The  testimony  of  Murphy  is  the  only  evidence  taken 
in  public  which  condemns,  unqualifiedly,  the  cutting. 
He  is  regarded  as  a  common  laborer  at  the  park,  working 
for  laborers'  wages  for  the  past  five  years,  although  of 
late  styled  a  gardener  on  the  pay  rolls.  It  was  not 
thought  worth  while  to  cross-question  him.  Sullivan 
knew  nothing  but  that  he  cut- some  trees  of  which  a  por- 
tion were  in  thinning  out  the  groups.  Rosenthal  cut 
some  down  where  he  considered  they  stood  too  thick. 
Andrews  cut  some  in  thinning  out  groups ;  supposed  there 
were  two  hundred  cut  in  all ;  and  knew  nothing  further. 

The  opinions  of  Collie  and  Stewart  should  not  be  ta- 
ken at  all,  for  the  reasons  (1)  that  it  was  distinctly  stated, 
by  the  Committee,  that  testimony  taken  in  secret  sessions 
would  not  form  a  portion  of  their  report  or  influence  their 
decision,  (2)  that  these  witnesses  had  not  examined  into 
the  circumstances  under  which  trees  were  cut  at  the  park, 
(3)  that  no  opportunity  was  had  of  cross-questioning 
them. 

Whereas,  the  opinions  of  Poppey,  Ellis,  Henderson, 
Bailey,  O'Neil  and  Hall  are  fortified  by  the  most  explicit 
demonstrations  of  the  correctness  of  the  plan  pursued  in 
this  matter  at  the  park,  and  by  the  citation  of  authori- 
ties on  the  subject ;  which  explanations  and  .reasons  the 
most  rigid  cross-examination,  on  the  part  of  the  commit- 
tee, failed  to  s.et  aside. 

The  total  number  of  trees  cut  according  to  Murphy's 
estimate  was  eight  to  twelve  hnndred ;  according  to  Pop- 


12 

pey*s  statement  two  or  three  huiidred  ;  and  according  to 
Andrews  supposition,  two  hundred. 

Hall  said  he  had  no  idea  how  many  trees  were  cut, 
there  might  have  been  u  five  hundred  or  it  may  have  been 
a  thousand."  (p.  62  of  Test.) 

Murphy  himself  cut  "  a  few." 

Sullitan  cut  "  sixty  or  eighty.'' 

Hosenthal  cut  '•  some." 

The  total  number  of  trees  planted  on  the  eastern  por- 
tion of  Golden  Gate  Park — the  portion  where  they  have 
attained  some  size,  and  where  the  cutting  was  done — previ- 
ous to  the  last  season's  work  (that  of  *75-'76)  according  to 
the  report  transmitted  to  the  Legislature  in  December,  1875 
(see  page  40),  was  forty-eight  thousand  five  hundred  and 
seventy-nine.  This  report  was  in  the  hands  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Now,  what  proportion  does  the  number  of  trees  cut  as 
above,  bear  to  the  number  planted  ? 

It  appears  that  this  committee  in  stating  that — 
*'  The  system  of  tree  planting  now  and  heretofore  car- 
ried out  has  resulted  in  a  wanton  and  useless  destruction 
si  one-third  of  all  the  trees  planted,"  report  that  of  which 
they  had  no  evidence,  of  which  they  had  a  mass  of  testi- 
mony to  the  contrary,  and  which  is  not  so. 

In  stating  that  in  their  opinion  "  these  trees  might 
have  been  transplanted  at  small  expense,  and  large  sums 
of  money  thus  saved,"  they  simply  set  up  their  individu- 
al opinion,  unsubstantiated  by  competent  or  .admissible 
evidence,  against  that  of  six  persons — all  but  one  of 
whom, "  known  to  be  experts  on  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration, all  of  whom,  cognizant  of  the  particular 
circumstances  of  the  case — made  clear  by  demonstra- 
tion, supported  by  authorities,  and  unshaken  by  cross- 
examination. 


13 

In  implying  that  trees  were  cut  for  the  purpose  of 
building  brush  fences  with  them,  by  stating  that  "  brush 
fences  could  have  been  built  of  the  natural  brush  on 
portions  of  the  park  " 

they  have  put  forth  an  idea  for  which  they  had  no  foun- 
dation ;  for  the  amount  of  natural  brush  actually  used 
has  been  reckoned  by  thousands  of  loads,  while  the  trees 
cut  in  thinning  the  plantations  and  otherwise,  as  proven, 
would  not  make  twenty  loads. 


WATER  SUPPLY. 

"Second — A  well  was  sunk,  and  a  pump,  tank  and  engine  pro- 
cured at  great  expense.  Twenty-five  thousand  gallons  of  water  can 
be  obtained  from  this  source  daily.  Yet  this  source  of  water  sup- 
ply was  used  but  for  a  few  months;  and  the  park  is  entirely  sup- 
plied by  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  leaving  the  well  and  its 
apparatus  entirely  unused.  Two  years  ago  the  commissioners  con- 
tracted with  the  water  company  for  four  hundred  dollars  per 
mouth.  This  sum  was  paid  for  but  two  months,  and  there  now  re- 
mains due  the  company  about  dollars,  depending  upon 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  pending  water  litigation. 
The  Commissioners'  contract  was  for  one  year;  but  at  the  end  of 
that  contract  they  should,,  under  the  circumstances,  have  availed 
themselves  of  their  own  supply,  and  thus  lessened  the  debt,  if  any, 
to  the  company." 

(Extract — second  finding — p.  4,  Kept,  of  Committee.) 

From  the  finding  of  the  committee  it  might  be  in- 
ferred (1)  that  pumping  works  were  erected  at  great  ex- 
pense, and  then  suffered  to  lie  idle  without  reason ;  and 
(2)  that  the  Commissioners  purchased  water  from  the 
Spring  Valley  Water  Works,  when  a  supply  might  have 
been  pumped  at  the  park  works  at  less  expense. 

The  facts  of  the  case  as  shown  the  committee,  are  that : 

The  well  referred  to  was  regarded  from  the  first  as  an  experi- 
mental work,  which  would  furnish  water  for  the  time  being, 
and  data  upon  which  to  base  expectations  of  amount  of  water 


li 


likely  to  be  obtained  by  such  means  on  the  park  reservation ; 
as  such  it  has  fully  answered  its  purpose,  and  is  still,  with  all 
appurtenances,  a  good  piece  of  property,  in  servicable  condition, 
and  ready  for  use  if  required. 

Subsequently,  when  much  more  water  was  needed  than  the 
works  spoken  of  would  furnish,  without  considerable  outlay  on 
the  well  to  enlarge  its  supply,  the  Commissioners  succeeded  in 
bargaining  with  the  water  company,  for  sufficient  water  for  all 
purposes  at  a  reasonable  price  per  month,  (obtaining  better 
terms  from  the  water  company  by  reason  of  having  the  well 
supply  to  fall  back  on,  thus  being  in  a  measure  at  least,  inde- 
pendent of  the  company)  and  then  the  use  of  the  well  and 
engine  was  discontinued. 

Still  later,  because  of  the  unsettled  condition  of  affairs  relative 
to  the  supply  of  water  to  the  city  and  its  public  grounds,  and 
for  the  additional  reason  that  the  Park  Improvement  Fund  has 
never  been  in  a  condition  to  warrant  an  outlay  for  suitable 
pumping  works,  it  was  not  judicious  to  prosecute  the  search  for 
a  large  supply  of  water  further,  or  increase  the  dimensions  of 
the  present  well. 

And,  whereas  the  well  without  enlargement  would  only  yield 
twenty-five  thousand  gallons  of  water  per  day,  the  amount  used 
to  advantage  on  the  park  during  the  summer  season  ranged  from 
fifty  to  eighty  thousand  gallons  per  day. 

The  most  favorable  terms  which  could  be  obtained  from  the 
water  company,  gave  the  Commisssoners  the  privilege  of  using 
as  much  water  as  was  needed,  up  to  a  limit  of  one  hundred 
thousand  gallons  daily,  for  the  monthly  rental  of  $400 ;  under 
which  circumstances  it  would  have  been  useless  to  run  the 
pumping  apparatus. 

And,  furthermore,— as  admitted  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee itself — there  being  an  unadjudicated  question  as  to 
whether  the  water  company  might  not  be  obliged  to  furnish 
water  for  the  park  gratuitously,  the  Commissioners  felt  them- 
selves amply  justified  in  continuing  to  take  the  water  as  long  as 
the  company  would  let  them  have  it  without  immediate  pay- 
ment, seeing  that  the  rate  would  make  the  expense,  even  if  ul- 
timately paid,  less  than,  under  the  circumstances,  it  could  be 
pumped  for. 


15 

(See  pages  48,  50,  51  of  Testimony; 
79  and  80  of  Additional  Testimony; 
8  and  9  of  Final  Testimony.) 

The  attention  of  the  Committee  was  also  attracted  to  the  fact 
that  the  subject  of  this  water  supply  had  been  repeatedly  al- 
luded to  by  the  Commission  in  its  reports  to  the  Legislature, 
which  allusions  are  found  to  explain  the  course  pursued  by  the 
Commission  in  the  matter. 

(See  p.    7  and    8,  Second  Biennial  Report ; 
p.  10  and  50,       "  "  "      ) 

* 
The  inferences  to  be  derived  from  the  very  obscure  and 

covert  criticism  of  the  course  of  the  Commission  in  the 
matter  of  water  supply  for  the  parks,  are  totally  unwar- 
ranted by  the  state  of  facts  and  circumstances  shown  the 
Committee ;  and  the  second  finding  of  their  report  can 
only  be  regarded  as  a  befogged  statement  of  the  case  on 
this  point,  upon  which  a  perverse  opinion  is  put  forth. 

Furthermore,  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  is  absurd : 
for  it  apparently  justifies  the  Commissioners  in  taking 
water  from  the  company  the  first  year,  when  they  expect- 
ed to  pay  for  it ;  but  censures  them  for  not  going  back 
to  their  pumping  works,  and  for  continuing  to  use  the 
water  from  the  company's  mains  thereafter,  when  they 
did  not  have  to  pay  for  it,  and  when — as  stated  by  the 
Committee  in  connection  with  their  opinion — a  doubt  had 
arisen  as  to  whether  the  Company  was  not  legally  obliged 
to  furnish  the  water  gratuitously. 

Now  suppose  the  course  opposite  to  that  criticised  by 
the  Committee  had  been  taken,  and  the  Commissioners  had 
resumed  the  pumping  of  water,  with  its  attendant  heavy 
cost  for  extension  of  works  and  running  expenses,  "at  the 
end  of  that  contract,"  as  the  Committee  say  ;  and  that  the 
result  of  the  pending  litigation  is  a  decision  that  the 
company  has  to  furnish  water  to  this  park  gratuitously : 
who  would  be  to  blame  for  having  constructed  needless 


16 

pumping  works  at  the  park,  and  for  running  them  at 
heavy  expense,  when  water  might  have  been  had  for 
nothing  ? 

From  the  facts,  as  set  forth  by  the  Committee  itself, 
the  Commissioners  were  most  justified  in  taking  the  water 
at  the  very  time  when  the  Committee  censure  them  for 
taking  it. 

CUT  ON  THE  NORTHERN  DRIVE. 

"Third A  cut  on  the  new  northern  drive,  originally  intended 

for  a  tunnel,  and  BO  marked  on  the  map,  we  consider  a  piece  of  de- 
liberate extravagance.  There  existed  no  necessity  for  the  so-called 
improvements.  It  never  could  as  a  tunnel,  and  can  now  less  as  an 
open  cut,  be  any  addition  to  the  beauties  of  the  Park.  As  good  if 
not  a  better  road  could  have  been  built  to  the  northward,  and  at  a 
vastly  less  expense.  Some  natural  beauties,  rare  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, have  been  effectually  destroyed  by  it,  and  the  unfortunate 
part  of  the  affair  is,  that  the  bad  work  has  so  far  progressed  that  it 
must  now  be  completed." 

(Extract — third  finding — Eeport  of  Committee,  pages  4  and  5.) 

The  cut  spoken  of  had  been  referred  to  in  the  report  of 
the  Park  Engineer,  transmitted  to  the  Legislature  with 
the  Third  Biennial  Report  of  the  Commission ;  copies  of 
which'  report  were  in  the  bands  of  the  Committee,  and 
the  explanatory  paragraph  quoted  below  was  pointed  out. 

"  At  a  point  about  one  third  of  the  distance  from  its  eastern 
extremity,  the  Northern  Drive  encounters  the  rocky  ridge  which 
extends  in  a  northwesterly  direction  from  Strawberry  Hill,  desig- 
nated in  former  reports  as  the  Great  Transverse  Ridge,  which 
separates  the  East  from  the  West  Park,  as  it  will  be  some  day. 
It  is  designed  to  carry  the  drive  through  this  ridge,  by  means  of 
a  heavy  cutting  at  a  low  point,  and  thus  render  its  passage  im- 
perceptible, so  far  as  inclination  in  the  roadway  is  concerned. 
Froiu  this  cut  all  the  clay  and  a  great  portion  of  the  rock  used 
in  the  construction  of  the  road  was  obtained ;  but  the  macadam- 
izing material, -being  of  an  inferior  quality,  the  cut  had  to  be 
abandoned  as  a  quarry,  and  material  obtained  for  the  road  sur- 
face from  the  top  of  the  ridge,  so  that  it  was  not  completed 
when  the  road  each  side  of  it  was  finished.  A  side  road  over 
the  hill  was  then  built,  to  accommodate  immediate  requirements, 
which  it  does  very  well,  leaving  the  surplus  material  in  the  big 


17 


cut  to  be  quarried  when  it  shall  be  needed  in  the  construction 
of  other  roads,  projected  in  that  portion  of  the  reservation,  for 
which  purpose  it  will  do  very  well,  when  applied,  as  it  was  on 
the  Northern  Drive,  simply  as  a  primary  layer  of  the  surfacing." 
(Extract  —  Report  of  Engineer  to  the  Park  Commissioners. 
Third  Biennial  Keport  of  Park  Commission  to  the  Legisla- 
ture, December,  1875,  p.  24  and  25.) 

The  opinion  of  the  Committee,  as  expressed  in  the  third  find- 
ing of  their  report,  first  above  extracted,  concerning  the  cutting 
referred  to  in  the  report  of  the  Engineer,  also  quoted,  must  have 
been  formed  from  a  personal  inspection,  of  about  ten  minutes' 
duration,  which  was  made  of  the  point  in  question  ;  for  there  is 
no  evidence  whatever  recorded,  rior  was  any  taken,  which  in  the 
least  degree  tends  to  establish  the  view  of  the  case  taken  by  the 
Committee,  and  very  much  which  j  ustifies  the  work  as  planned 
and  performed — as  follows : 

W.  H.  HALL — Engineer  of  the  Park — explained  that  in  the 
passage  of  this  ridge  he  effected  the  location  of  the  roadway  on 
desirably  gentle  curvature  and  easy  gradients,  by  carrying  it 
through  the  ridge  in  a  heavy  cutting— originally  planned  as  a 
tunnel;  that  a  certain  amount  of  material,  of  the  character  ap- 
pearing in  this  ridge,  at  or  about  the  point  selected  for  the  cut, 
was  necessary  for  macadamizing  the  three  miles  of  roadway  con- 
stituting the  northern  drive ;  that  such  material  was  only  to  be 
had,  in  the  neighborhood  of  this  roadway,  upon  the  ridge  crossed  ; 
that  he  adjusted  the  alignment  and  grade  of  the  road  in  the  cut 
spoken  of  so  as  to  obtain  therein  sufficient  material  to  accom- 
plish the  macadamizing  work ;  that  all  the  material  taken  from 
the  said  cut  was  used  as  a  primary  layer  of  the  macadamizing ; 
that  being  disappointed  in  the  character  of  the  material  upon 
approaching  the  centre  of  the  cut  — it  not  proving  to  be  of 
proper  quality  for  the  surfacing  of  the  roadway  — the  cut  was 
temporarily  abandoned,  a  side  road  built  over  the  hill,  and  ma- 
terial to  finish  macadamizing  the  roadway  taken  from  a  point  on 
top  of  the  ridge  near  by  ;  that  it  is  the  intention  to  finish  the  cut 
as  material  is  required  therefrom  for  the  primary  layer  of  macad- 
amizing of  the  roadways  yet  to  be  built  in  the  neighborhood. 
He  therefore  considered  that  the  cut,  as  such,  had  not,  thus  far, 
cost  anything ;  and  being  completed  as  proposed,  would  not  add 


IS 

anything  to  the  cost  of  the  roadway,  but,  by  shortening  the 
length  of  road-bed  graded  and  macadamized,  actually  make  it 
cost  less.  The  material  had  to  be  quarried  somewhere  for  the 
purpose,  which  that  taken  from  the  cut  had  served  ;  the  locality 
where  the  cut  was  made  was  the  most  convenient  point  to  the 
entire  length  of  roadway  built ;  there  was,  therefore,  no  extra 
expense  incurred  by  making  the  cut,  for  it  was,  in  effect,  quarry- 
ing material  for  macadamizing,  and  grading  road-bed  at  one  and 
the  same  time.  From  an  aesthetic  stand-point,  he  considered 
the  cut  could  be  made  a  feature  in  the  landscapes  of  the  Park, 
which  could  not  be  obtained  in  any  other  portion  of  the  reserva- 
tion— a  rocky  canyon,  possessing  natural-like  attractions,  which 
would  add  greatly  to  the  scenic  effects  of  the  neighborhood ; 
and,  furthermore,  that  the  roadway  by  its  present  location  was 
kept  in  low  ground,  sheltered  from  the  winds  to  which  it  would 
be  subjected  were  it  carried  around  the  ridge  to  the  northward, 
even  if  it  could  be  so  carried  on  admissible  grades  and  degrees 
of  curvature. 

(See  pages  40,  41,  42,  43  of  Testimony;  also,  pages  67,  68 
of  Additional  Testimony.) 

The  following  evidence  appears,  in  substantiation  of  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  the  Park  Engineer,  being  the  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses who  made  an  examination  of  the  ground  at  the  point  in 
question,  sufficient,  as  they  expressed  it,  to  base  their  respective 
professional  opinions  upon;  which  examinations  were. somewhat 
longer  and  in  every  way  more  thorough  than  the  examination 
made  by  the  members  of  the  Committee,  although  they,  the  en- 
gineers, did  not  go  to  the  top  of  a  certain  hill,  and  come  down 
again,  which  the  Committee  appeared  to  think  was  a  necessary 
thing  to  do  in  order  to  be  able  to  judge  of  the  lay  of  the  land. 

GEO.  F.  ALLARDT  —  Civil  Engineer  of  twenty  years'  exped- 
ience, recently  Chief  Engineer  to  the  Tide  Land  Commission  — 
justified  the  work  from  an  engineering  stand-point,  giving  rea- 
sons substantially  the  same  as  those  given  by  Hall ;  considered 
the  cut  an  economical  work,  and  saw  no  evidence  of  unneces- 
sary expenditure  of  public  moneys  in  the  construction  of  the 
roadway. 

(See  pages  44,  45,  46,  48,  49,  50  of  Additional  Testimony.) 


19 

T.  J.  ARNOLD — Civil  engineer  of  twenty-two  years'  experi- 
ence, now  Engineer  to  the  State  Board  of  Harbor  Commission- 
ers and  City  Engineer  of  Oakland — considered  the  road  well  lo- 
cated ;  justified  the  work  at  the  cut  from  an  engineering  stand- 
point ;  thought  the  cut  a  judicious  piece  of  work ;  did  not  think 
that  there  had  been  any  unnecessary  expenditure  of  public  money 
at  the  point  in  question. 

(See  pages  89,  90,  91,  93,  94  of  Additional  Testimony.) 

JOHN  ELLIS. — Landscape  gardener  of  forty  years  experience ; 
planned  and  executed  improvements  of  the  State  Capitol  grounds; 
at  present,  Horticulturist  at  the  State  University — justified  the 
location  of  the  roadway  in  passing  the  ridge  at  the  point  in 
question,  from  an  artistic  and  economical  standpoint,  substantiat- 
ing his  opinion  by  giving  reasons  therefor.  (See  pages  52  and 
53  of  Ad.  Test.) 

Kegarding  the  cut  from  an  artistic  standpoint,  he  says : 

11  It  will  add  such  a  feature  to  the  park  as  is  not  to  be  found 
in  it  elsewhere — that  is  in  the  introduction  of  rock  work  ; 
which  could  be  carried  out  very  prettily  there,  and  probably 
nowhere  else  in  the  park."  (See  page  55  of  Additional  Testi- 
mony.) 

W.  N.  LOCKINGTON. — Landscape  gardener  and  architect  of  ar- 
tistic garden  and  park  structures,  of  much  experience  and  ob- 
servation in  Europe  ;  justified  the  work  in  question  from  an  ar- 
tistic point  of  view,  giving  reasons  therefor. 

(See  pages  77,  76,  75,  of  Ad.  Test.) 

In  this  connection  the  topographical  contour  line  map  of  the 
park,  showing  in  minute  detail  the  shape  of  the  ground — its 
height  and  slope  at  all  points — was  offered  in  evidence,  as  a 
basis  upon  which  the  engineer,  Mr.  Arnold,  might  further 
explain  his  views  concerning  the  location  of  the  road,  and  state 
positively  whether  or  not  it  might  advantageously  have  been 
carried  around  the  hill  to  the  northward,  where  the  Committee 
thought  it  ought  to  have  been  located.  The  introduction  of  the 
map  was  objected  to  by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee,  en  the 
ground  that  there  was  no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  map  was 
correct.  It  was  then  offered  by  the  park  management  as  the 
official  map  of  the  Commission,  on  file  in  its  office,  but  was  not 
admitted,  notwithstanding  that  it  appears  that  it  was  admitted, 


20 

"  for  what  it  is  worth,"  on  the  93  page  of  Ad.  Test.,  as  printed, 
and  the  engineer  referred  to  was  not  examined  upon  it,  as  the 
park  management  desired  he  should  be. 

On  this  point  the  Committee,  in  their  third  finding, 
have  taken  their  own  judgment — upon  a  subject  totally 
foreign  to  the  business  experience  of  any  of  their  num- 
ber— formed  from  a  cursory  observation  of  the  ground — 
as  against  that  of  two  civil  engineers  and  two  landscape 
gardeners  of  the  highest  rank  in  their  respective  profes- 
sions (whose  examinations  of  the  position  were  made 
with  a  professional  eye,  and  with  a  view  of  testifying  on 
the  point  in  question) ;  and  in  further  antagonism  to  the 
full  explanations  of  the  merits  of  the  case  as  set  forth  by 
the  engineer  of  the  park. 

This  finding  of  the  committee  is  a  sample  of  presump- 
tuous dogmatism,  unsupported  by  any  evidence,  contra- 
dicted by  all  the  evidence  and  lacking  the  apology  of 
ordinary  dogmatism,  viz. :  an  honest  conviction. 

CUT  ON  THE  SOUTHERN  DRIVE. 

"  On  the  Southern  drive  a  large  amount  of  unnecessary  cutting 
and  filling  has  been  done/' 
(Extract — part  of  third  finding — p.  5,  Report  of  Committee.) 

In  the  construction  of  the  Southern  Drive,  at  a  point 
about  opposite  Second  Avenue,  it  became  necessary  to 
pass  a  certain  ridge  of  sand  which  lay  across  the  proposed 
path  of  the  road.  The  Park  Engineer  located  the  road 
through  this  ridge. 

FRED.  Mow  —  Civil  engineer  and  landscape  gardener ;  em- 
ployed as  a  foreman  on  the  park  in  1872,  when  the  above  men- 
tioned work  was  going  on — testified  that  the  road  should  have 
been  carried  sharp  off  to  the  right,  around  the  point  of  the  ridge, 
whereby  much  cutting  would  have  been  saved,  the  face  of  na- 
ture less  changed,  and  the  protection  of  the  ridge,  for  the 
grounds  on  the  leeward  side  of  it,  preserved  entire. 

(Seepage  100  and  101  of  Testimony.) 


21 

A  question  put  to  this  witness  on  cross-examination  by  the 
park  management,  an  answer  to  which  would  have  put  him 
squarely  on  record  as  to  his  judgment  on  the  point  whether  or 
no  '•  the  principles  of  good  taste  and  the  carrying  out  of  a  ju- 
dicious plan"  are  "to  be  sacrificed  to  the  saving  of  a  little 
money  in  some  earthwork,"  was  not  admitted  by  the  Com- 
mittee, on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  leading  question.  The  wit- 
ness might  have  answered  the  interrogatory  as  put,  in  the  affirm- 
ative or  negative,  according  to  his  judgment.  The  question 
was  not  a  leading  one,  and  the  ruling  of  the  Committee  was  in- 
correct and  unjust.  (See  p.  107  of  Test.) 

It  was  sought  by  the  park  management  to  show  from  this 
witness  himself,  the  circumstances  of  his  leaving  the  park  em- 
ploy, and  his  consequent  status.  This  was  not  allowed  by  the 
Committee.  (See  p.  109  of  Test.) 

In  justification  of  the  work  as  executed,  the  following  evi- 
dence appears  : 

W.  H.  HALL — Engineer  of  the  Park,  explained  that  certain 
advantages  were  gained  by  locating  the  road  as  it  was — through 
the  hill — which  advantages  were  :  the  obtaining  of  necessary 
material  for  adjacent  fillings  ;  adjustment  of  easy  curvature  and 
grades  in  the  roadway,  without  any  material  sacrifice  of  the 
protection  afforded  by  the  ridge,  or  of  the  desirably  natural 
configuration  of  topography.  Also,  that  a  road  around  the 
point  of  the  hill,  as  proposed  by  Mow,  could  only  be  made  upon 
very  sharp  and  inadmissible  curves,  or  by  the  execution  of 
equally  heavy  earthwork  to  avoid  them. 
(See  p.  41  and  44  of  Testimony.) 

Messrs.  Allardt  and  Arnold,  civil  engineers,  hereinbefore  re- 
ferred to,  justified  the  location  of  the  road  as  it  is,  on  engineer- 
ing grounds,  giving  reasons  for  their  opinions.  Did  not  consider 
that  there  had  been  any  unnecessary  expenditure  of  public 
moneys  at  the  point  in  question. 

(See  p.  43,  44,  47,  48,  88,  89,  92  of  Ad.  Test.) 

Messrs.  Ellis  and  Lockington,  landacape  gardeners,  also 
referred  to,  justified  the  location  of  the  road  from  an  artistic 


22 

standpoint,  and  considered  the  cut  an  economical  piece  of  work 
in  the  construction  of  the  road. 

(See  p.  51,  52,  54.  55.  74,  75,  78  of  Ad.  Test.) 

This  is  all  the  testimony  concerning  earthwork  along 
or  upon  the  Southern  Drive. 

In  saying  that  there  has  been  "unnecessary  cutting  and 
filling  "  performed  in  this  quarter,  the  committee  express 
an  opinion  based  upon  the  evidence  of  a  man  who  occu- 
pied an  inferior  position  at  the  park,  the  tone  of  whose 
testimony  before  them,  both  in  secret  and  in  open  investi- 
gation, shows  him  to  have  been  embittered  towards  the 
park  engineer,  whose  work  he  was  criticising ;  a  man 
whose  status  it  was  necessary  to  conceal ;  as  against  that 
of  the  four  experts  of  the  first  standing  in  their  profes- 
ions,  who  having  examined  the  ground,  sustained  the 
course  pursued  by  the  engineer  of  the  park,  in  the  strong- 
est terms. 

It  is  neither  shown  nor  claimed  that  the  Committee 
were  engineers.  They  neither  criticise  nor  explain  away 
the  testimony  of  experts.  They  scorned  topographical 
maps,  which  showed  the  original  shape  of  the  ground, 
and  ignore  everything  upon  which  a  conclusion  contrary 
to  that  which  they  have  come  to,  could  be  based.  Their 
finding  is  therefore  an  arbitrary  opinion  of  unqualified 
judges. 

SYSTEM  OF  ACCOUNTS. 

"  Fourth — By  the  system  of  accounts  adopted  by  the  Commission 
it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  the  cost  of  any  large  work.  The  Secre- 
tary himself  admits  this.  Your  Committee  endeavored  to  learn  the 
cost  of  the  cut  to  this  time,  but  without  avail." 

(Extract— fourth  finding — p.  5,  Report  of  Committee.) 

The  accounts  kept  by  the  Secretary  show  the  disposition  of 
the  monies  drawn  from  the  Park  Improvement  Fund,  according 
to  the  demands  drawn  each  month  in  payment  to  each  em- 


23 

ployee  for  services  rendered  at  the  park  by  him  (as  credited  and 
returned  by  the  Park  Keeper  in  the  shape  of  a  pay  roll)  and 
for  material,  supplies,  etc.,  purchased,  as  recorded  in  vouchers 
containing  detailed  bills  thereof.  An  individual,  credited  with 
time  on  the  pay  roll,  may  have  and  probably  has  been  employed 
upon  from  five  to  twenty-five  classes  of  work  during  the  month, 
of  which,  several  may  have  been  on  the  same  day  j  the  pay  roll 
could  not  possibly  show  this.  Supplies  purchased  are  distributed 
amongst  many  different  works  ;  the  bills  rendered  the  Secretary 
could  not  show  this.  Therefore  his  accounts  did  not  exhibit 
the.  items  of  expense  demanded  by  the  Committee. 

An  account  of  the  disposition,  in  detail,  of  this  labor  and  of 
these  supplies,  etc.,  is  kept  at  the  park,  by  the  Engineer  and 
Park  Keeper. 

Had  the  demand  have  been  made  upon  them,  when  the  Com- 
mittee was  in  San  Francisco  at  one  of  its  earlier  sittings,  a 
statement  of  the  cost  of  the  several  classes  of  work  and  specific 
itenrn  of  expense  at  the  park,  could  have  been  furnished.  But 
the  Committee  waited  until  the  last  hour  of  their  last  session  in 
the  city,  to  instruct  the  Secretary  to  prepare  a  statement  which 
the  time  allowed  him  would  not  admit  of  his  accomplishing, 
and  for  which  his  accounts  did  not  furnish  the  data. 

The  criticism  of  the  system  of  accounts  adopted  by  the 
Commission,  as  contained  in  the  fourth  finding  of  the 
Committee's  Report,  is  calculated  to  convey  an  erroneous 
impression,  which  the  lights  before  them  must  have  made 
apparent. 


RECORD   OF  VISITORS. 

' '  Several  men  are  employed  at  the  park  making  daily  reports  of 
the  number  of  vehicles,  visitors,  etc.  These  may  be  useful  in 
showing  the  popular  use  of  the  park,  but  they  serve  no  other  end." 

(Extract  fourth  finding — p.  5  of  Report  of  Committee. 

What  evidence  this  statement  is  based  upon  it  is  im- 
possible to  say ;  the  only  testimony  on  the  point  being 
that  of  W.  H.  Hall,  Superintendent,  as  follows : 


24 

"  There  are  two  Gate  Keepers,  each  having  charge  of  one 
gate;  the  other  gates  are  opened  and  shut  by  the  Assistant  Park 
Keepers  on  the  roads.  The  Gate  Keepers  live  in  the  gate  hou- 
ses, open  their  respective  gates  at  five  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
and  close  them  at  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening.  Their  duties 
consist  of  watering  cleaning  and  otherwise  taking  care  of  a  sec- 
tion of  roadway — about  one  thousand  feet  in  length — adjacent 
to  their  respective  gates,  and  of  the  grounds  bordering  thereon. 
They  are  required  to  be  on  duty — to  be  there  present — about 
fourteen  hours  per  day,  besides  sleeping  there  at  night.  They 
are  only  permitted  to  go  away  to  their  meals  and  back  again  ; 
and  have  one  day  of  liberty  during  each  month.  The  counting 
of  vehicles  passing  through,  is  merely  incidental,  and  not  sup- 
posed to  interfere  materially  with  their  duties  on  the  road." 

(Substance  of  testimony  of  W.  H.  Hall;  see  p.  73  of  Testi- 
mony.) 

The  manifest  intention  of  this  statement  of  the  Com- 
mittee is  to  convey  the  idea  that  men  are  employed  to 
count  visitors,  etc.,  rendering  no  other  service. 

In  this  light  the  statement  is  false,  according  to  the 
evidence  and  the  fact. 


SUPERINTENDENT'S  ATTENTION  TO  DUTY. 

"Fifth. — The  superintendent  receives  a  salaryof  four  hundred  dol- 
lars per  month,  and  the  people  are  certainly  entitled  to  his  entire 
time;  yet  we  find  him  making  surveys  in  San  Mateo  and  Marin 
counties. '' 

(Extract — fifth  finding — p.  5,  Kept,  of  Committee.) 

It  does  not  appear  in  the  testimony  that  the  Superin- 
tendent has  ever  been  engaged  otherwise  than  upon  park 
work  since  his  salary  was  placed  at  a  figure — four  hundred 
dollars  per  month — which  was  considered  by  the  Commis- 
sioners a  sufficient  remuneration  for  his  exclusive  services. 

The  contract  work  undertaken  in  Marin  County  was  comple- 
ted more  than  five  years  ago,  before  the  Superintendent  was  em- 
ployed regularly  by  the  Commission.  The  work  in  San  Mateo 
county  was  contracted  for  and  completed  upwards  of  two  years 
ago,  when  the  Superintendent's  salary  was  three  hundred  dollars 


25 

per  month,  and  when  his  understanding  with  the  Commissioners 
allowed  him  to  take  outside  work  which  would  not  interfere 
with  his  duties  as  their  engineer  and  general  superintendent. 
He  was  absent  but  a  day  or  two  occasionally,  in  his  attention  to 
the  San  Mateo  work,  of  which  absences  the  Commissioners  were 
aware. 

(See  pp.  60  and  81  of  Test.,  and  pp.  96,  97,  104  and  105  of 
Ad.  Test.) 

This  complaint  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  spirit  of  petty 
fault-finding  displayed  throughout  the  entire  proceedings 
of  the  Committee,  and  manifest  in  every  paragraph  of  its 
report,  and  is  but  one  of  the  instances  wherein  a  gross 
perversion  of  facts  and  evidence  is  resorted  to  in  order  to 
make  even  such  trivial  criticism. 


RECLAMATION  CONTRACT. 

The  superintendant  "has  taken  private  contracts  for  the  recla- 
mation of  private  lands  adjoining  the  park,  and  in  the  latter  there 
is  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  Burns  and  Ward  as  to  the  manner 
in  which  they  were  in  part  paid  for  their  services.  The  amount 
involved  is  small,  but  the  fact  exists." 

[Extract,  p.  5,  Kep't  of  Committee.] 

The  western  end  of  Golden  Gate  Park,  for  about  two 
miles  of  its  length,  is  situated  upon  the  sand  downs. 
This  portion  of  the  reservation  has  been  in  a  gjreat  meas- 
ure primarily  reclaimed — covered  with  vegetation  suffi- 
cient to  stop  the  drifting  of  the  sands — by  plantations  of 
the  lupin  bush.  It  is  protected  on  the  west,  at  the  beach, 
from  the  inroad  of  the  sands,  by  a  brush  fence,  but  has 
been  subjected  to  the  drift  on  its  northern  and  southern 
sides.  It  early  became  an  object  of  solicitude  on  the  part 
of  the  Commissioners  to  have  the  adjoining  lands  from 
whence  these  drifts  came,  also  cultivated,  because  of  the 
great  drawback  they,  in  their  unreclaimed  condition, 
were  to  the  progress  and  completion  of  the  park  work  of 
that  character. 


26 

With  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  the  Commissioners,  Hall 
undertook  to  reclaim  for  the  owners,  by  private  contract,  a  cer- 
tain tract  of  this  sand  land  lying  next  to  and  south  of  the  park 
reservation.  The  reclaiming  of  this  land  was  considered  a  de- 
cided benefit  to  the  park  because  it  protected  the  reclaimed 
land  of  the  reservation  from  the  drift  on  that  side  for  about  a 
mile  and  a  half  of  its  length. 

(See  p.   126  of  Test;   see  p.  58,  60  and  61  of  Test) 

The  work  of  reclamation  under  the  contract  taken  by  Hall 
was  prosecuted  on  two  occasions  during  the  winter  of  1874-5. 
On  the  first  occasion  men  and  teams  were  employed  from  six  to 
eight  days  in  making  the  plantation  ;  and  on  the  second  occasion 
— some  weeks  afterwards — men  and  teams  were  employed  from 
two  to  four  days,  over  the  same  ground,  repairing  damage  done 
to  the  plantation  by  storms. 

(See  Private  Pay  Bolls  of  Hall,  submitted  to  Committee.) 

PAT.  BURNS  testified  that  he  was  employed  as  laborer  on  the 
park  ;  worked  ten  or  twelve  days  for  Hall  on  his  private  con- 
tract work  at  two  dollars  per  day,  for  which  he  received  but 
five  dollars  and  a  half  from  Hall,  and  got  the  rest  of  his  money 
for  that  time,  from  the  city  treasury,  on  his  park  voucher  drawn 
to  him  as  a  laborer  on  the  park.  (p.  110  of  Testimony.) 

On  cross  examination  Burns  states  that  he  worked  for  Hall 
in  all  ten  or  twelve  days ;  that  he  received  all  the  money  that 
was  due  him  for  the  total  time  worked  by  him.  (p.  Ill  of  Test.) 

Burns  identified  his  signature  on  Hall's  private  pay  rolls  ;  on 
the  first — that  marked  ''Original  plantation" — for  7.3-9  days 
at  $2.00  pr.  d.;  on  the  second — that  marked  '*  First  repairing" 
— for  2.5£-9  days  @  $2.00 ;  making  in  all  about  ten  days, 
(p.  Ill  of  Test.) 

A  comparison  of  the  private  pay  rolls,  above  mentioned,  with 
the  park  pay  rolls,  has  shown  that  Burns  is  not  credited  with 
time  on  the  said  park  rolls  which  is  allowed  him  on  the  private 
rolls,  that  the  credits  upon  the  two  together  make  up  the  sum 
total  of  the  working  days  claimed  by  Burns  in  all. 

A  comparison  of  the  demands  drawn  to  Burns'  order  (upon 
which  he  identified  his  signature)  on  the  Park  Improvement 
Fund,  in  the  city  treasury,  with  the  park  pay  rolls,  shows  that 


27 

the  time  for  which  he  was  paid  on  said  vouchers  corresponds, 
in  each  instance,  with  the  time  credited  on  the  park  pay  rolls 
and  therefore  did  not  provide  payment  for  time  not  on  those 
rolls.  (See  p.  99  and  100  of  Ad.  Test.) 

W.  H.  HALL  testified  positively  that  Burns  was  paid  by  him 
in  full  for  all  time  worked  by  him  (Burns)  for  him  (Hall);  and 
that  he  never  credited  any  man  upon  the  park  pay  rolls  with 
time  which  he  did  not  work  upon  the  park.  (p.  59  of  Test.) 

Louis  ENRICHT — former  Assistant  Engineer  upon  the  park — 
testified  that  he  kept  the  time  of  Burns  and  that  the  credits  on 
the  park  pay  rolls  represented  the  actual  amount  of  time  worked 
by  Burns  for  the  park,  and  no  more ;  and  that  he  witnessed 
Hall  pay  Burns  cash  in  full  for  the  time  represented  in  the  pri- 
vate pay  rolls,  (p.  10  of  Additional  Testimony.) 

The  case  of  Pat.  Ward  is  an  exactly  similar  one. 

These  men  receiving  all  the  money  due  them,  which 
they  acknowledge ;  and  drawing  from  the  park  fund  pay- 
ment for  the  time  represented  on  park  pay  rolls  only, 
which  did  not  include  the  time  worked  for  Hall, 
must  have  received  from  Hall  payment  for  full  time 
worked  for  him,  which  time  corresponds  to  that  credited 
them  on  the  private  rolls. 

In  calling  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Burns  and 
Ward,  without  noticing  that  this  is  contradicted  by  com- 
petent evidence  both  oral  and  documentary,  the  Commit- 
tee have  been  consistent  with  the  course  pursued  by 
them  throughout  the  entire  investigation. 


MONUMENTS. 

' '  Prior  to  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Hall  as  superintendent  of  the 
park,  he  had,  under  a  contract  with  the  commissioners,  made  a 
topographical  survey  of  the  park,  and  as  part  of  his  contract  he 
placed  certain  granite  monuments  to  designate  certain  points  in  his 
survey.  The  testimony  of  several  witnesses,  the  admission  of  Mr. 
Hall  himself,  and  his  own  first  biennial  report,  taken  together,  show 


28 

conclusively  that  he  removed  from  the  park  a  number  of  the  monu- 
ments so  placed  by  him  and  used  them  in  one  of  his  private  sur- 
veys at  San  Rafael.  The  cash  value  of  the  monuments  can  scarce- 
ly be  considered  the  true  question  involved,  'i  he  monuments,  if 
for  any  purpose,  were  intended  to  mark  certain  points  and  lines. 
Now,  these  monuments  removed,  is  not  every  evidence  of  boundary 
distance  and  direction  destroyed  ?  Are  not  new  surveys  rendered 
necessary  when  any  work  shall  be  attempted  ?'' 
(Extract,  page  5,  Kept,  of  Committee.) 

The  case  upon  which  this  censure  is  founded,  as  present- 
ed to  the  Committee,  is  substantially  as  follows: 

Of  four  sets  of  specifications  for  the  original  topographical 
survey  of  the  park  reservation,  submitted  by  civil  engineers  to 
the  Commissioners,  in  July,  1870,  those  presented  by  W.  H.  Hall 
were  adopted. 

(Minutes  of  Meeting,  Board  of  P.  C.,  July  26th,  1870.) 

As  originally  drawn,  these  specifications  called  for  small  gran- 
ite monuments,  or  corner  stones,  to  be  placed  at  such  points, 
viz.:  ''all  angular  points  of  the  exterior  boundaries  thereof" 
(the  park  reservation)  "and  at  the  intersection  of  centre  lines 
of  streets  therewith,"  as  to  make  the  total  number  required 
about  one  hundred  and  thirty. 

These  specifications  were  amended  "  to  economize  in  the 
price  of  the  survey."  (See  p.  39  of  Ad.  Testimony.) 

As  amended,  the  words  "and  at  the  intersection  of  the  cen- 
tre lines  of  city  streets  therewith  "  being  left  out,  these  specifi- 
cations required  the  contractor  to  furnish  and  place  ten  granite 
monuments  or  corner  stones,  viz  :  one  at  each  "  angular  point 
of  the  exterior  boundaries  thereof,''  (the  park  reservation)  these 
angular  points  being  nine  in  number,  as  shown  on  the  map,  and 
one  on  a  certain  hill  near  the  centre  of  the  reservation.  (See 
page  40  of  Ad.  Test.) 

Upon  the  specifications  thus  amended  and  adopted,  the  Com- 
mission solicited  proposals  to  contract  for  the  survey  required. 
(See  p.  39  of  Ad.  Test.) 

The  contract  was  awarded  to  W,  H.  Hall,  he  being  the  lowest 
bidder.  (See  minutes  of  meeting  of  Board  of  P.  C.,  Aug.  Sth, 


29 

The  specifications  of  this  survey,  on  file  in  the  office  of  the 
Commission,  were  produced  before  the  Committee,  identified  in 
detail  by  A.  J.  Moulder,  former  Secretary  of  the  Board.  (See 
p.  39,  40  of  Ad.  Test.) 

W.  H.  HALL  testified  as  follows  : 

"  T  undertook  this  survey  under  these  specifications  as  they 
are  here,  and  as  they  have  been  identified,  and  put  in  twenty- 
seven  granite  monuments  of  my  own  motion,  under  a  specifica- 
tion which  called  for  ten.  In  other  words,  seventeen  more  than 
I  was  paid  for.  I  did  that  because  they  cost  me  but  little,  and 
because  I  expected  to  be  Engineer  of  the  Park,  and  I  knew  that 
a  greater  number  would  be  of  advantage  and  convenience  to  me 
in  surveying.  Afterwards,  when  the  Avenue  was  being  graded, 
and  four  or  six  of  these  monuments  were  being  covered  up,  and 
no  longer  of  any  use  there.  I  had  either  four  or  six  taken  away. 
I  considered  them  my  own.  I  consider  that  there  are  eleven  or 
thirteen  monuments  there  on  the  park  now  that  I  have  never 
been  paid  for,  and  I  don't  expect  any  pay  for  them.  Right  here 
I  will  state  that  under  the  same  circumstances,  in  the  some  case, 
I  should  remove  those  six  granite  monuments  again.  They 
were  my  property,  and  I  took  them  away."  (Extracts  from 
testimony,  of  W.  H.  Hall,  p.  41  of  Ad.  Test. 

The  monuments  cost  $1.75  or  $2.00  each. 

J.  "W.  HODNETT,  former  assistant  foreman  at  the  park,  testi- 
fied to  having  taken  some  of  these  monuments,  number  uncer- 
tain— "  eight  or  ten,  or  may  be  less  than  either  " — away  from 
the  park,  by  Hall's  direction,  some  time  during  the  year  1871, 
previous  to  his  employment  on  the  park.  (See  p.  94  of  Testi- 
mony.) 

Louis  ENRICHT,  former  Asst.  Engineer  on  the  park,  testified 
that  about  April,  1872,  there  were  twenty-three  of  these  granite 
monuments  in  position  on  the  park.  (See  p.  6  of  Ad.  Test.) 

It  appears  then  that  the  monuments  taken  by  Hodnett 
were  those  referred  to  by  Hall.  That  Hall  exceeded  his 
contract  work,  and  that  the  park  is  still  debtor  to  him 
for  thirteen  monuments. 

It  was  explained  to  the  committee  that  the  removal  of 
the  particular  monuments  taken  would  not  necessitate  new 
surveys,  because  a  fence  was  built  on  the  line  upon  which 
these  stones  had  been. 


30 

* 

The  very  uncertain  and  noncommittal  conclusion  of  the 
committee  on  this  point  absolutely  ignores,  as  do  all  its 
findings,  the  testimony  taken  on  the  occasion  of  its  second 
visit  to  San  Francisco,  and  printed  as  Additional  Testi- 
mony, in  which  will  be  found  a  complete  line  of  defence 
against  all  of  the  points  published  abroad  in  the  first 
pamphlet,  as  the  Testimony  taken  etc. 


CONCLUSION. 

The  committee  conclude  by  saying: — 

' '  Tour  committee  recognize  to  a  large  degree,  the  amount  and 
Talue  of  the  work  already  done  upon  the  Park.  It  was  found  by 
the  Commission  almost  a  desert.  They  have  succeeded  in  bringing 
a  large  portion  of  it  to  a  state  verging  upon  perfection,  and  the  re- 
mainder is  in  a  fair  way  to  the  same  result." 

"  The  Golden  Gate  Park  ought  to  be  considered  the  pleasure 
ground  of  the  San  Francisco  of  the  future,  and  so  treated." 

"  But  while  your  Committee  would  thus  urge  a  large  liberality  in 
the  premises,  they  would  insist  upon  a  close  regard,  on  the  part  of 
the  management,  to  details;  a  more  watchful  supervision  of  em- 
ployees; a  restriction  of  the  powers  of  subordinates,  especially  in 
matters  of  purchases  and  proposals,  and  prosecution  of  the  larger 
works,  and  generally  we  would  insist  upon  personal  care  and  at- 
tention necessary  to  produce  an  efficient,  economical  administra- 
tion of  affairs  commensurate  with  the  interests  intrusted  to  them." 

"These  views  of  your  Committee  carried  out  the  Golden  Gate 
Park  could  be  made  what  it  ought  to  be,  an  immediate  benefit  to 
the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  a  matter  of  pride  and  credit  to  the 
State  at  large." 

To  consider  the  fourth  paragraph  as  above  quoted : 
the  report  does  not  favor  us  with  a  single  practical  view, 
original  with  the  Committee  or  borrowed.  It  was  their 

r> 

work  of  nearly  the  entire  session,  but  it  is  as  bare  of 
suggestion  as  their  course  of  action  was  of  good  result. 
There  was  no  evidence  whatever  before  the  Committee 
to  show  that  there  had  been  any  laxity  on  the  part  of  the 
Commission  in  the  management  of  its  affairs — that  it  had 
delegated  any  such  plenary  powers  to  its  chief  employee 


31 

or  subordinates  as  implied  by  the  Committee  throughout 
their  report — or  which  proved  that  the  trust  imposed 
upon  the  Commission  bad  suffered  in  any  manner  by  the 
confidence  reposed  in  the  Superintendent  and  Engineer 
of  its  works.  On  the  contrary,  the  trust  was  well  de- 
served. 

A  large  amount  of  evidence  was  adduced  and  offered 
which  showed  a  state  of  affairs  the  reverse  of  that  re- 
ported by  the  Committee,  and  more  of  a  similar  charac- 
ter would  have  been  brought  forth  but  for  the  manner 
in  which  much  that  was  produced  was  received. 

There  are  some  other  points  of  less  moment  which 
might  be  noticed  in  much  the  same  manner  as  those 
already  touched  upon ;  but  enough  has  been  said  to  show, 
that  while  the  course  and  manner  of  the  Committee's 
proceedings — from  the  beginning  to  the  close  thereof — 
partook  more  of  the  character  of  an  overt  and  aggressive 
prosecution  of  charges  contrived  and  framed  in  secret, 
than  of  a  calm  and  impartial  investigation  for  truth  alone, 
the  report  itself,  the  product  of  these  proceedings,  is  still 
more  remarkable  in  some  of  its  characteristics,  than  all 
that  preceded  it ;  and  for  these  reasons  : 

First — On  questions,  which,  by  their  nature,  are  deter- 
minable,  only,  by  professional  learning  and  skill,  the 
crude  opinions  of  committee-men  are,  with  equal  ignor- 
ance and  dogmatism,  substituted  for  and  made  para- 
mount to  the  well  considered  and  deliberately  formed 
opinions  of  engineers  of  acknowledged  capacity,  attain- 
ments and  experience ; 

Second — In  respect  to  other  matters,  conclusions  are 
announced  which,  in  some  instances,  are  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  overwhelming  weight  of  evidence,  and,  in  others, 
are  not  supported  by  any  evidence  whatever. 

And  yet,  again,  we  have  directed  attention  sufficiently 
to  demonstrate,  that  the  Committee  to  whom  the  House 


32 

delegated  the  duty  of  a  fair  and  unimpassioned  investiga- 
tion of  Park  Commission  affairs,  have  performed  that 
duty,  either,  under  a  sense  of  the  solemnity  of  the  obli- 
gation so  faint  as  to  disqualify  them  for  its  discharge,  or, 
that,  wholly  ignoring  the  obligation,  they  have  wilfully, 
to  the  extent  and  in  the  particulars  pointed  out,  shaped 
their  official  acts  after  a  manner  inconsistent  with  the 
development  of  truth  and  the  doing  of  justice,  and, 
withal,  grossly  unbecoming  the  dignity  of  the  high  legis- 
lative body  which  they  represented. 

The  Commissioners  wish  to  state  in  conclusion :  that 
they  are  conscious  of  having  discharged  their  duty  ae 
Siwdi  to  the  best  of  their  ability ;  and  are  desirous  of 
being  judged  by  the  practical  result  of  their  service, 
and  a  just  analysis  of  the  evidence  taken  before  this 
Committee — for  they  feel  that  nothing  has  been  proven  to 
their  discredit  or  to  that  of  any  of  their  employees. 

Very  respectfully  submitted, 

E.  L.  SULLIVAN, 

WILLIAM  ALVORD,  }-  Park  Commissioners. 

Louis 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Lot  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  It  was  borrowed. 


'nivei 

Sou 

Lil 


